Microsoft, Google, and VMware redefine the OS
While the open-source crowd gets (rightly) excited by Linux's growing market share, three companies are pulling the rug out from under the feet of traditional operating systems.
Red Hat is winning in Linux while IBM cleans up the Unix market. But those are increasingly yesterday's markets as Microsoft, Google, and VMware create different breeds of operating system, each tuned to the strength of its product portfolio.
The easiest to understand are Google and VMware. Google, with its Linux distribution Chrome OS, is placing secondary emphasis on the operating system and primary emphasis on where it takes you: the Web. Given Google's strength in cloud computing, this makes perfect sense. Google needs an operating system just long enough to move users "off" their personal computers (or mobile phones, for which Google has developed Android) and into its cloud services: Google Apps, Search, Wave, etc.
While Google won't find this strategy to be easy, it has the brand and expertise to bring "desktop" substance to cloud applications.
Similarly, VMware's vSphere attempts to untether computing from "desktops" and on-premises servers. VMware describes vSphere as:
...the industry's first cloud operating system, transforming IT infrastructures into a private cloud--a collection of internal clouds federated on-demand to external clouds--delivering IT infrastructure as a service.
VMware recently acquired open-source Java leader SpringSource to complement this strategy, giving developers an easy way to build, deploy, and manage Java-based applications for vSphere (and beyond). With Java applications already running at full steam in vSphere, this move should serve to heighten the value of vSphere.
And then there's Microsoft. The company prints billions of dollars worth of profits each quarter from its Windows franchise, yet for years it has been quietly developing its next big operating system. And no, I'm not referring to Windows 7.
With Windows under fire from VMware in virtualization (though Gartner thinks Microsoft stands to gain on VMware) and from Google in Web-based applications, Microsoft has created a bridge "between personal productivity and line-of-business applications," one that stitches together Microsoft's "desktop" dominance with its cloud ambitions.
It's called SharePoint, and with over 100 million seats and $1 billion in revenue, the odds are that your company already has it installed.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer long ago declared that "SharePoint is the definitive operating system or platform for the middle tier," and I don't think he's using the term "operating system" lightly.
Increasingly, SharePoint is the center of the Microsoft universe, at least, for enterprise computing. SharePoint serves as the hub for Microsoft's suite of operating systems, applications, and third-party software. It is a content application server, of sorts, one that provides the platform upon which so much of Microsoft's value is now being built.
I've disparaged SharePoint in the past for its tendency to lock customers into its proprietary repository. But let's be clear: a large number of companies seem perfectly happy to make that trade-off and are actively using SharePoint at the heart of their intranets, extranets, and Web sites.
Between Microsoft SharePoint, Google Chrome OS, and VMware vSphere, we're in for real innovation in what "operating system" means. While this shift will take awhile, leaving traditional vendors plenty of time to make money in traditional operating systems--hey, companies are still making money in green-screen software--the future of the operating system is almost certain to look different from vanilla Windows, Linux, or Unix.
Disclosure: My company, Alfresco, offers an open-source content application server that has been positioned in the past as directly competitive with SharePoint.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Sharepoint is a Lotus Notes redux using SQLserver and file formats that cause any document opening to have to fire up a Microsoft Office app. There is no VMware or Red Hat equivalent (other than something like MindTouch Deki Wiki shipped as a virtual appliance). Sharepoint is not, and I've seen no indication that it has any ambitions to be, a cloud OS platform. Nor is Alfresco!
I want to clear up one potentially confusing component of your comment however. Yes, MindTouch does package a VMware image. This is very popular. But we also package for all major Linux distros AND we have a fantastic Microsoft Installer (MSI) that makes it very easy to install and update MindTouch on Win/IIS.
IMHO, VMWare has made the OS not much more than just another app. I can clone/customize a new server w/ OS now in less time than it took to install Quake2 in 1996.
So yes, VMWare has redefined the OS, at least on the IT side of things.
The cloud fanfare (Azure, et al) is still mostly vapor, and largely unrealized. It also has a nasty habit of opening a can of worms insofar as data security and tighter vendor lock-in are concerned.
Sharepoint? Heh - most folks use it as a glorified web CMS, and damned little else... it is far from being an "operating system" replacement by any means.
What qualifies you to determine and state what "most folks" are using it for? Are you working from Microsoft, conducted surveys, etc.? Or, is it "most folks, err, most business users, you know"?
I didn't make any statement of fact in my post, so not sure what you're talking about when you asked me "what qualifies you"... I was making a comment on his comment as a lay person. What qualifies me to do that?.. I don't know... Maybe I'm not qualified to ask... but if so, so were you, and so where Random_Walk...
>> Maybe he's just talking about his own personal experience
Yeah, that's what I meant... I thought that may he should qualify his statement by saying that it's based on his personal experience -- if that's the case.
It was a sweeping statement so I wanted to find out if he has specific source or methodology behind that statement. I was also a little bit ticked-off by his "genius" comment with the anonymous guy above.
I just wanted to point out that the world does not revolve a single person, so others may have a different take on what "most folks" are using Sharepoint for. But he has done some formal research about it, then people, hmm, I, can take his post in a different light.
What's wrong with that odubtaig? How is that "pot and the kettle"?
But hey - I'm always welcome to seeing proof showing otherwise. If you have any then let's see it. :)
Given that Mr Anonymous might as well have prefaced his comment with "Oi! Thicky!", he's not getting a pat on the head and a tummy rub any time soon. Your comment was filled with a more subtle level of contempt and is no more endearing. It's not anyone else's fault you can't infer.
So let's say you're right. I guess that means that you have the *right* to talk down on anyone who was wrong before. Nobody has the right to talk down on anybody.
It's nice of you to point out "subtle" contempt on my part. Please don't put words in my mouth. Don't put more meaning to what is said than what is written.
Oh, my past statements... Nice of you to remember. I myself can't remember much of them. I'm flattered. Yes, I have made some comments before that where wrong because of my poor memory, but they were never intentional.
I was addressing the question to Random_Walk who is more than capable of defending himself from the evil "eade". Not sure what you're point really is...
I'll tell you what, odubtaig... Okay, so let's establish that I'm bad and you're all good. Is that good enough for you? Are you just going to hunt me down on all the post that I'm making on CNet? Have mercy please. Can we move on?
Random_Walk... I don't have any opinion on Sharepoint as I don't use it. My company uses it though and as you said, Intel and other major companies use it, as Matt points out. Given that many customers, I just can't see how it's as bad as you have described it. They must be seeing more than what you are seeing....
By the way, I'm not sure if you felt "contempt" on my previous posts as odubtaig has so righteously declared... If so, I'm sorry... that's just how I write sometimes... I get a bit on edge when sweeping statements are made.
I use and maintain VDI (VMWare View) right now, and it is very similar to the ideal which proponents have been preaching about what the cloud should be - albeit in microcosm.
The reason it works so well is, yes, costs are kept low. Data control is kept high. Availability is kept even higher. Hardware? Almost a carefree experience.
OTOH, that data control is kept in-house. I don't have to worry about the A/P department screwing up a payment and the vendor holding that data hostage. I don't have to worry about the entire company grinding to an enforced halt because some jackass with a backhoe, somewhere in the county, accidentally chops the local fiber loop. I don't have to worry about federal marshals shutting down a datacenter and leaving my corp, along with dozens of others, shut off and cut off with no alternative (yes, this has happened to a datacenter already).
Now keeping it local has its unique hazards as well, but this merely points to the fact that each method will have its use, and its unique niche.
Seriously, it's what their courses, Packet Tracer and Opnet IT Guru (yep, different company) call those parts of the internet (almost all of it) not under your control. Something about it all being vaguely defined and subject to change with little or no warning. For one bit of coursework I got bored and used the 'cloud' symbol from the old BBC weather reports of the '80s.
It's not a word you can avoid if you're doing a networking qualification.
Indeed... the symbol has been used for at least over a decade that I'm aware of, likely longer. :)
OTOH, everyone preaches as if the cloud is suddenly this commodity that every can park their IT infrastructure on. Not really seeing much sense in doing that.
Can a web browser be an "operating system"? Yeah, it might, within the confines of the browser itself, but how well does your web browser handle video display and audio playback when multiple things are going on? Can a web browser guarantee that your Internet radio stream doesn't wipe out your online banking data or fill up your device's storage space with crash reports?
It doesn't have to be the means by which half a dozen large program suites co-exist. It doesn't have to do anything more than just connect your browser to your hardware. Several new Linux distros, not including Googles future contribution, are already working on becoming just such a thing and they work beautifully well.
Your idea of what an operating system must be reminds of what MS says a netbook must be. Things change. Change with them or get left behind.
The dictionary definition of the operating system doesn't change. Some of the newer operating systems have different implementations (e.g., a browser as the presentation layer), but ultimately, it's still a big complicated program that lets other big complicated programs co-exist peacefully on the same system.
It is way more complicated than "connect your browser to your hardware" even if someone really wanted a browser and nothing more, which is an extremely dubious thought.
It's just as easy as that.
By the way,
definition of Operating System
open source dictionary- software that controls the execution of
computer programs and may provide various services
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:operating+system&ei=_5OTSr-LM5Kntgey57hN&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Every definition for Operating System I'm finding is saying exactly what I said in different words. All that an OS has to do is operate your hardware. How it does this comes in many different forms, including a system of 3rd party drivers or drivers that are part of the kernel.
Anything else the OS is doing is gravy. Chrome OS just happens to be reported to apply the gravy in a different way.
@pentest
Connecting the browser to your hardware in the way in which I was saying doesn't mean removing all drivers. The kernel Chrome OS will purportedly be using is Linux, drivers in Linux are, the majority of the time, part of the kernel.
That means Chrome OS will be the application on top of the kernel. It still will be able to use those USB peripherals, optical drives, HDDs, other peripherals that you're worried about. Sound and Video management will still be handled efficiently.
The OS just won't have to be responsible for connecting more than a single piece of software to the hardware, that being the browser which happens to be the only application necessary, at least that's what Google is counting on.
If you disagree with the idea of the Cloud, that's a different argument altogether.
Your lack of understanding about how hardware and software work together is alarming.
What goes on behind that button click? Who takes care of hardware and software interrupts? Oh yeah, an OS.
"Connecting the browser to your hardware in the way in which I was saying doesn't mean removing all drivers. The kernel Chrome OS will purportedly be using is Linux, drivers in Linux are, the majority of the time, part of the kernel.
That means Chrome OS will be the application on top of the kernel. It still will be able to use those USB peripherals, optical drives, HDDs, other peripherals that you're worried about. Sound and Video management will still be handled efficiently.
The OS just won't have to be responsible for connecting more than a single piece of software to the hardware, that being the browser which happens to be the only application necessary, at least that's what Google is counting on."
That is totally misinformed and contradicts your assertion about a browser acting like an OS. What do you think drivers are? What do you think flash is? How do you produce video and sound from data in the browser? SOFTWARE.
Even if all you use is a browser and that is all you can see in your system there is still lots of software running in the background. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.
I also think a web only OS is jumping the gun somewhat.
What i'd like to see.
A windows platform where microsoft (or even 3rd parties) will host your data, every version of windows will have office installed. It doesn't matter what PC you login into your data/desktop will be there, this should not be limited to win server owners but be as simple as mobile me. large files such as music and video would be steamed (see spotify)
Microsoft could even go as far as to give the operating system away for free online and just charge per user. Why should i pay twice to do the same thing on different platforms (desktop,laptop,netbook,phone)
The login should be totally seemless and could consist of a username a password and maybe domain name, including a checkbox if you wish to store your data offline. different providers could provide different levels of control up to and including wins server
This is also the problem with remote/cloud based systems where latency, downtime and the limitations of browsers themselves mean that only so much can be done with the platform. Never mind the increases in bandwidth either, it's still not at a stage where conservation of bandwidth use isn't an advantage and for a basic application it's easily as fast to knock a program together in Java as it is in JavaScript (which probably says more about the web-centric languages than it does about Java).
The only real truth with all of this is that a good many people with modern computers are just not using more than a tiny percentage of their capabilities and if Google Apps fulfills all your need you don't have many but almost everyone I know does at least one thing which, although it can be done on all systems, can't currently be done without a traditional O/S, even if it's just playing music files.
Question - how so, at least insofar as business is concerned? The big one that still sticks out is GPU acceleration, but unless you're running a CAD/CAM/CG shop, that's not really a biggie, and most servers and generic biz user desktops don't have one to speak of anyway. Networking certainly isn't affected IMHO (and has even been enhanced thanks to virtual switching). Disk space back at the SAN is certainly enhanced (no more having to fiddle with iSCSI/FCP initiators unless you really want to - just use NFS).
I'm just curious which hardware aspect, aside from the GPU obviously, do you lose out on by going virtual.
As far as I'm aware, virtualisation is primarily useful on the server side or for development work; being able to test a backup/restore in a non-critical virtual machine (even if that's on another machine), host-only reconfiguration on hardware changes, adding a service on a virtual machine without adding a permanent installation of software or background load on the host... for web developers it's an even bigger benefit to have just one computer for multiple web browsers in multiple virtual hosts plus a small web server image.
There is, though, the addition of a possible single point of failure.
However, I don't expect it to work massively well for the home user unless it can get true and equal access to the hardware, if only because of games. Quite apart from CG production houses, recording studios and so on, there are a great many amateurs using cheap or free CG programs and a myriad of bands that record their entire albums on one computer and it's not prohibitive any more to get audio hardware that plugs into the USB port which has multiple input channels including two for professional mics (can't remember what it's called, it was in Linux Format of all things a few months back).
What there needs to be is either direct access to the hardware in some way (the hypervisor acting as a transparent layer to que and direct I/O) or hardware emulation in parity with what's available; VMWare's soundblaster emulation just ain't gonna cut it when someone needs to be managing 24Bit, 192KHz audio streams for production recording. There's also the additional devices such as graphics tablets (and the appropriate mapping) and joysticks/pads.
It is mainly only two areas which are limited by virtualisation but they're important areas. As it is, my primary domain is graphics programming but I also do a small amount of DJing for alternative nights which relies a great deal on sound quality and is made a lot easier by my external soundcard (Terratec Auron Mk II) as I can use the 'front' channels as the main output and the 'rear' channels for previewing and cueing on headphones. For this latter exercise it's nice that I can rip my CDs to ogg in Linux but the DJing software runs on Windows and I need full access to the hardware to set hardware gain levels in Terratec's software so while the hardware could be set up to run in Linux there are other limitations that mean the software must run in Windows and I need full access to the hardware so Windows must run on hardware. Yes, I've tried Mixxx, it wasn't good enough.
OTOH, you don't need more than one OS on a client station when you go fully virtual. I use these little critters called Panos (http://www.panologic.com) They're basically small cubes you plug your keyboard, mouse, network cable, and monitor into. They have just enough of a 'bios' to start itself, then calls for a management server to point it at its virtual machine (which is then hosted on a VMWare server). It finds its way with a simple option that you park on the DHCP server. You can do it directly from the management server (which is itself a VM, by the way), or you can pass through it to a View Server (which is what I do since it has more options).
It also works just fine on thin clients and even full-blown desktops (like VMWare View does), but the cubes have no moving parts, and troubleshooting is drop simple with 'em.
They're truly "cloud" appliances, since they have no OS themselves (just a big BIOS of sorts that acts as a glorified KVM switch).
Now, given all of this, I doubt that anything less than a Cable or FIOS connection would make using one worthwhile for a home user hooking up to something remote, and no 3D accelerated games for you if you do. While the little Panos only eat the approximate bandwidth of two RDP sessions, lag/latency, dropped packets, and infrequent outages would make it worse than useless. At work I have a gigabit network and a 10gb backbone (and server room mesh) that I can play with and keep the connections rock-solid. At home I'm lucky if Comcast doesn't lag out half the time...
Security? Hah! Look how long it takes companies now to inform their customers of a data theft. And that's with local storage! Steal from a "cloud," though, and there's a good chance no one will find out until a million bank statements get corrolated.
This whole "cloud" thing is going to be another data point on whether or not to do business with or invest in a company. Some people will like it because it diversifies data storage, availability, and smoothes out the revenue stream, some will hate it because the customer of those "cloud" computing companies has very little actual control over their programs and data.
- by Richardosc August 25, 2009 11:47 AM PDT
- Hey all you open source commentators ! You can become a writer for open Source Crunch (www.opensourcecrunch.com). Please visit http://www.opensourcecrunch.co?..ation.html
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(31 Comments)?
Cheers :)